Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pithwa Engg. Works on 1 July, 2005
In support, he has relied
upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the
matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Pithwa
Engg. Works (276 ITR 519).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kiranbhai H. Shelat And Ors. on 27 April, 1998
Mr Rastogi has next submitted that the above-
referred judgment in the matter of Ramjee Prasad is per
incuriam the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the
matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kiranbhai
H. Shelat & Anr. (235 ITR 635). He has submitted that
the Gujarat High Court has in no uncertain terms held
that the Development Officers of the Corporation are
entitled to deduct actual expenses incurred by them to the
maximum of 30% from the amount of the incentive
bonus received by them from the Corporation.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.D. Patil on 19 September, 1997
In the matter of Ramjee Prasad, identical
question of law was referred to this Court. This Court
followed the judgments of the Full Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of
Income-Tax Vs. M.D. Patil [1998 (220) ITR 71] and of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.K. Ghosh [(2003)
263 ITR 536] and of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.
Gurudeo Singh Jaggi [(2004) 267 ITR 763]. The
aforesaid High Courts have taken a consistent view that
the amount of incentive bonus received by the
Development Officers of the Corporation is not referable
to and is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act, but
7
is a `salary' within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of
the Act. The only deduction admissible will be the
standard deduction available under Section 16 of the Act.
The appeal preferred against the above-referred judgment
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was not entertained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.K. Ghosh on 5 May, 2003
In the matter of Ramjee Prasad, identical
question of law was referred to this Court. This Court
followed the judgments of the Full Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of
Income-Tax Vs. M.D. Patil [1998 (220) ITR 71] and of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.K. Ghosh [(2003)
263 ITR 536] and of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.
Gurudeo Singh Jaggi [(2004) 267 ITR 763]. The
aforesaid High Courts have taken a consistent view that
the amount of incentive bonus received by the
Development Officers of the Corporation is not referable
to and is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act, but
7
is a `salary' within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of
the Act. The only deduction admissible will be the
standard deduction available under Section 16 of the Act.
The appeal preferred against the above-referred judgment
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was not entertained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Gurudeo Singh Jaggi on 9 May, 2003
In the matter of Ramjee Prasad, identical
question of law was referred to this Court. This Court
followed the judgments of the Full Bench of the
Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of
Income-Tax Vs. M.D. Patil [1998 (220) ITR 71] and of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. A.K. Ghosh [(2003)
263 ITR 536] and of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs.
Gurudeo Singh Jaggi [(2004) 267 ITR 763]. The
aforesaid High Courts have taken a consistent view that
the amount of incentive bonus received by the
Development Officers of the Corporation is not referable
to and is not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act, but
7
is a `salary' within the meaning of Section 17(1)(iv) of
the Act. The only deduction admissible will be the
standard deduction available under Section 16 of the Act.
The appeal preferred against the above-referred judgment
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was not entertained
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1